Why a salary cap?

[Cardinals1964]

In the last 10 years, 7 different teams won the WS.
Until the Dodgers there wasn’t a repeat WS winner in 25 years.
NFL had only 6 different teams win the Super Bowl in the last 10 years. With a cap.
If a cap is agreed to, what will the owners give up? Faster arbitration? Faster free agency? International draft?
Will the owners open their books so the players can see the true revenue?

[CCard]

In the last 10 years, 7 different teams won the WS.
Until the Dodgers there wasn’t a repeat WS winner in 25 years.
NFL had only 6 different teams win the Super Bowl in the last 10 years. With a cap.
If a cap is agreed to, what will the owners give up? Faster arbitration? Faster free agency? International draft?
Will the owners open their books so the players can see the true revenue?

Unless something radical happens I doubt that MLB players will agree to a salary cap. Why would they? It limits there possible income. More than likely this problem will have to be addressed on the owner side. The billionaire boys club will have to agree to rules that limit their spending ability. You can't have a league if a majority of teams won't play. As for different teams winning, you might be right about repeat winners but it's almost always a handful of big spending teams in play for the WS. As for Super Bowl teams, there's a lot of luck with injuries among other things like terrible officiating and such. Plus they have a salary cap which helps keep them on a more level playing field.

[mattmitchl44]

Because the owners (most of them anyway) should want to get out in front of where MLB appears to be headed - greater and greater monetary polarization between the few "haves" and the many "have nots."

And the owners should be giving up a salary floor - forcing about 10 teams to spend more than they are now - and a guarantee to MLBPA that total player salary ($5.28 billion in 2025, per Cot's) will rise by X% per year over the years of the next CBA. They should also be finding a way to route more of that money to productive, younger players.

A guarantee of more total money going to the players is good for the players. But a salary cap/floor system should mean:

(1) the star and superstar players - even when they reach FA - should be distributed more evenly about the league and
(2) some flattening of the overall player salaries where the superstars aren't guaranteed of making 50x or 60x what productive, young players are paid.

[BrockFloodMaris]

In the last 10 years, 7 different teams won the WS.
Until the Dodgers there wasn’t a repeat WS winner in 25 years.
NFL had only 6 different teams win the Super Bowl in the last 10 years. With a cap.
If a cap is agreed to, what will the owners give up? Faster arbitration? Faster free agency? International draft?
Will the owners open their books so the players can see the true revenue?

Competitive parity. Look at all the NFL teams that get much worse from year to year, and all the NFL teams that get a lot better from year to year. Caps create the opportunity for all teams to win. This attracts more fans to those teams in small markets, who would otherwise never have a chance.

[alw80]

In the last 10 years, 7 different teams won the WS.
Until the Dodgers there wasn’t a repeat WS winner in 25 years.
NFL had only 6 different teams win the Super Bowl in the last 10 years. With a cap.
If a cap is agreed to, what will the owners give up? Faster arbitration? Faster free agency? International draft?
Will the owners open their books so the players can see the true revenue?

So the owners can make even more money.

[alw80]

In the last 10 years, 7 different teams won the WS.
Until the Dodgers there wasn’t a repeat WS winner in 25 years.
NFL had only 6 different teams win the Super Bowl in the last 10 years. With a cap.
If a cap is agreed to, what will the owners give up? Faster arbitration? Faster free agency? International draft?
Will the owners open their books so the players can see the true revenue?

Competitive parity. Look at all the NFL teams that get much worse from year to year, and all the NFL teams that get a lot better from year to year. Caps create the opportunity for all teams to win. This attracts more fans to those teams in small markets, who would otherwise never have a chance.

Baseball isn't the NFL and will never be the NFL.

[sikeston bulldog2]

In the last 10 years, 7 different teams won the WS.
Until the Dodgers there wasn’t a repeat WS winner in 25 years.
NFL had only 6 different teams win the Super Bowl in the last 10 years. With a cap.
If a cap is agreed to, what will the owners give up? Faster arbitration? Faster free agency? International draft?
Will the owners open their books so the players can see the true revenue?

Competitive parity. Look at all the NFL teams that get much worse from year to year, and all the NFL teams that get a lot better from year to year. Caps create the opportunity for all teams to win. This attracts more fans to those teams in small markets, who would otherwise never have a chance.

Baseball isn't the NFL and will never be the NFL.

Baseball only wishes it was the NFL- 365 day coverage on all sports channels. Baseball gets an hour; occasionally.

[Jatalk]

In the last 10 years, 7 different teams won the WS.
Until the Dodgers there wasn’t a repeat WS winner in 25 years.
NFL had only 6 different teams win the Super Bowl in the last 10 years. With a cap.
If a cap is agreed to, what will the owners give up? Faster arbitration? Faster free agency? International draft?
Will the owners open their books so the players can see the true revenue?

Unless something radical happens I doubt that MLB players will agree to a salary cap. Why would they? It limits there possible income. More than likely this problem will have to be addressed on the owner side. The billionaire boys club will have to agree to rules that limit their spending ability. You can't have a league if a majority of teams won't play. As for different teams winning, you might be right about repeat winners but it's almost always a handful of big spending teams in play for the WS. As for Super Bowl teams, there's a lot of luck with injuries among other things like terrible officiating and such. Plus they have a salary cap which helps keep them on a more level playing field.

“Rules limiting their spending ability” but no salary cap, can you expand on what you mean? I support a cap and floor but interested in other options.

[mattmitchl44]

In the last 10 years, 7 different teams won the WS.
Until the Dodgers there wasn’t a repeat WS winner in 25 years.
NFL had only 6 different teams win the Super Bowl in the last 10 years. With a cap.
If a cap is agreed to, what will the owners give up? Faster arbitration? Faster free agency? International draft?
Will the owners open their books so the players can see the true revenue?

Unless something radical happens I doubt that MLB players will agree to a salary cap. Why would they? It limits there possible income. More than likely this problem will have to be addressed on the owner side. The billionaire boys club will have to agree to rules that limit their spending ability. You can't have a league if a majority of teams won't play. As for different teams winning, you might be right about repeat winners but it's almost always a handful of big spending teams in play for the WS. As for Super Bowl teams, there's a lot of luck with injuries among other things like terrible officiating and such. Plus they have a salary cap which helps keep them on a more level playing field.

“Rules limiting their spending ability” but no salary cap, can you expand on what you mean? I support a cap and floor but interested in other options.

If that isn't addressed in the CBA, the union will call it "collusion" and take the owners to court.

[CCard]

In the last 10 years, 7 different teams won the WS.
Until the Dodgers there wasn’t a repeat WS winner in 25 years.
NFL had only 6 different teams win the Super Bowl in the last 10 years. With a cap.
If a cap is agreed to, what will the owners give up? Faster arbitration? Faster free agency? International draft?
Will the owners open their books so the players can see the true revenue?

Unless something radical happens I doubt that MLB players will agree to a salary cap. Why would they? It limits there possible income. More than likely this problem will have to be addressed on the owner side. The billionaire boys club will have to agree to rules that limit their spending ability. You can't have a league if a majority of teams won't play. As for different teams winning, you might be right about repeat winners but it's almost always a handful of big spending teams in play for the WS. As for Super Bowl teams, there's a lot of luck with injuries among other things like terrible officiating and such. Plus they have a salary cap which helps keep them on a more level playing field.

“Rules limiting their spending ability” but no salary cap, can you expand on what you mean? I support a cap and floor but interested in other options.

If no cap then they'll have to agree with MLB rules or whatever covenant they make that they won't exceed more than X amount of dollars. So basically an owner self imposed salary cap.

[mattmitchl44]

In the last 10 years, 7 different teams won the WS.
Until the Dodgers there wasn’t a repeat WS winner in 25 years.
NFL had only 6 different teams win the Super Bowl in the last 10 years. With a cap.
If a cap is agreed to, what will the owners give up? Faster arbitration? Faster free agency? International draft?
Will the owners open their books so the players can see the true revenue?

Unless something radical happens I doubt that MLB players will agree to a salary cap. Why would they? It limits there possible income. More than likely this problem will have to be addressed on the owner side. The billionaire boys club will have to agree to rules that limit their spending ability. You can't have a league if a majority of teams won't play. As for different teams winning, you might be right about repeat winners but it's almost always a handful of big spending teams in play for the WS. As for Super Bowl teams, there's a lot of luck with injuries among other things like terrible officiating and such. Plus they have a salary cap which helps keep them on a more level playing field.

“Rules limiting their spending ability” but no salary cap, can you expand on what you mean? I support a cap and floor but interested in other options.

If no cap then they'll have to agree with MLB rules or whatever covenant they make that they won't exceed more than X amount of dollars. So basically an owner self imposed salary cap.

That would be collusion.

[3dender]

Why I don't think a cap happens anytime soon is that the owners as a whole aren't just battling the players about it, they're infighting about it too. Most of the owners don't even want it -- the top teams because it would cost them more in penalties and weaken their current competetive advantage, and the bottom teams because they'd have to spend way more than they currently do.

Probably only the 5-15 middest teams want it, and they have to not only make concessions to players about it but they also have to make concessions to the (more than?) half of the owners who don't want it.

Honestly the two best, simplest things they could do for the sport is to cancel LAD's non-revenue sharing broadcast agreement and then put in a floor of $120M. Any owner that can't afford spending that much after getting $80M in revenue sharing should gtfo.

[JuanAgosto]

Because the owners (most of them anyway) should want to get out in front of where MLB appears to be headed - greater and greater monetary polarization between the few "haves" and the many "have nots."

And the owners should be giving up a salary floor - forcing about 10 teams to spend more than they are now - and a guarantee to MLBPA that total player salary ($5.28 billion in 2025, per Cot's) will rise by X% per year over the years of the next CBA. They should also be finding a way to route more of that money to productive, younger players.

A guarantee of more total money going to the players is good for the players. But a salary cap/floor system should mean:

(1) the star and superstar players - even when they reach FA - should be distributed more evenly about the league and
(2) some flattening of the overall player salaries where the superstars aren't guaranteed of making 50x or 60x what productive, young players are paid.

The owners have themselves to blame. They offer the outrageous contracts.

[Wattage]

In the last 10 years, 7 different teams won the WS.
Until the Dodgers there wasn’t a repeat WS winner in 25 years.
NFL had only 6 different teams win the Super Bowl in the last 10 years. With a cap.
If a cap is agreed to, what will the owners give up? Faster arbitration? Faster free agency? International draft?
Will the owners open their books so the players can see the true revenue?

until recently. no team soent as oztlandish exvessive compared to others as is happening now and dogers are likely to ha e more repeats or at least pennants year after ywarf if something dowsnt change

[bfib]

Because well over half the league starts every year with zero hope of being financially competitive with the top handful of teams.

Pointing towards the randomness of the sport itself as proof of parity is complete smooth brain activity

[BrockFloodMaris]

In the last 10 years, 7 different teams won the WS.
Until the Dodgers there wasn’t a repeat WS winner in 25 years.
NFL had only 6 different teams win the Super Bowl in the last 10 years. With a cap.
If a cap is agreed to, what will the owners give up? Faster arbitration? Faster free agency? International draft?
Will the owners open their books so the players can see the true revenue?

Competitive parity. Look at all the NFL teams that get much worse from year to year, and all the NFL teams that get a lot better from year to year. Caps create the opportunity for all teams to win. This attracts more fans to those teams in small markets, who would otherwise never have a chance.

Baseball isn't the NFL and will never be the NFL.

No it is not. No one said that they are the same. The example of competitive parity is transferable. It’s math. We will need a salary floor to go along with the cap.